Published AAO appeal decisions

A creative technologist employed in interactive multimedia displays petitioned for EB-1A classification. Two criteria were met: critical role and exhibitions. The AAO dismissed the appeal because only two of three required criteria were satisfied and final merits showed no sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level.

Art museum petitioned for associate curator beneficiary for O-1A extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no significant national or international award and failure to meet three of six alternate criteria; comparable evidence argument rejected.

Art museum as employer-sponsor for curator beneficiary seeking extraordinary ability classification. Met judging, published material, and leading critical role criteria. Final merits determination sustained: beneficiary demonstrated sustained acclaim and recognition at top of field. Appeal sustained.

An art director and photographer sought EB-1A classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found four criteria met (awards, published material, judging, exhibitions), exceeding the three-criterion threshold, but dismissed because the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status.

A visual effects artist employed at an animation studio claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found published materials criterion met but original contributions not met due to vague letters. At final merits, the decision held the petitioner lacked sustained acclaim despite being talented and promising, therefore not meeting the extraordinary ability standard.

Senior UX designer claimed five criteria but met only one reliably. Awards lacked proven recognition; design displays served promotional rather than artistic purposes. Insufficient criteria met and no evidence of sustained national acclaim at field top.